Yup, the co-pilot and pilot typically do that, but on some aircraft one pilot works the throttles and the other pilot works the yoke at various stages of the flight, with the P1 calling for power settings rather than setting them him or herself, and if the aircraft is using automated throttle, then the pilot could use either hand on the yoke. On occasions where there is a third crew member as a flight engineer, sometimes the flight engineer will work the throttles, Concorde was an example of an advanced aircraft where this happened.So, with only the requirement to control the yoke in such situations, the pilot had the option of using either hand. Whether they choose to use that option is up to them. As I say, I'm not a commercial pilot, I only fly little aeroplanes for real, so I only know that some commercial pilots have told me they don't like it so much that they don't have that option to use either hand on the yoke like they can on a typical Boeing. Maybe the real reason is simply that they can't do the Daily Telegraph crossword puzzle whilst flying P2, maybe they like having the approach chart on the yoke in front of them and lament the loss of a yoke where you can't do that, I don't know.Funnily enough, As I type, I'm currently watching the Just Planes DVD of the MNG Airlines A300 (that being an Airbus with a traditional yoke and steam gauges - all part of the research for that Aerosoft A300 review), and I've noticed a few occasions where they are using one or the other hand on the yoke, even though they mostly do in fact use right hand at P2 and left hand at P1 in the 'traditionally correct' way. That's a good DVD by the way, some nice clear shots of the A300 steam-driven panel with an INS rather than an FMC. Worth grabbing a copy of it if you like the older Airbus. It shows them loading horses onto a freight aircraft amongst other things, which I've never seen done before. Actually, it's just shown the flight engineer working the throttles on that horse ferrying flight on the A300, with the P2 doing the yoke with both hands to fly the departure manually.Al

OK, I see. I knew what you are saying, I just thought you were referring to any other way to control the aircraft (putting the techniques and conditions you are mentioning aside). But yeah, it all comes down to tastes regarding that sidestick issue.Best regards.

Typical.As with any other commercial 2-pilot aircraft...Every pilot starts (normally) in the right hand seat, after learning to fly on the left side, so actually one would have to "relearn" to fly from the right. Is not only in Airbus, it's in every freakin airplane.Please tell me you are joking...

You know what, Ed ... I don't come to AVSIM to have AVSIM staff rip apart my posts.Not only is that rude to the people your boss invited here, but I don't think Tom Allensworth would appreciate it.I'm forwarding your message to him so he can see how you are tattering his reputation.There are lots of non-pilots who enter the Hanger Chat forum to ask what you apparently consider to be "typical" and stupid questions. They don't come here to be ridiculed by AVSIM staff members. I don't appreciate the tone or content of your post and I'd ask that you delete it as it makes AVSIM look really bad and reflects poorly on your professionalism.Go review something. Do something useful with your time at AVSIM.Finally, I'd offer you some advice my mother offered me as a child: If you don't have anything positive to add to the conversation you'd be well advised not to join it.

Yeah, you know what? I admit I was bit rough on my post. I apologise, but I'll say no more to make this worse. I'll keep my opinions to myself next time. And as a matter of fact, I am reviewing right now.Best regards

If you don't have anything positive to add to the conversation you'd be well advised not to join it

Now you have gone a bit too far, Kevin.If it really was to be like you say, it would be a praising temple, not a discussion forum! :( I appreciate the fact people write both positive and nagetive opinions and that they are so various. That's what makes my being here so educative.

I'm going to avoid the arguments and stick to the original question. Anyway Dillon, my old man was on the A330/340 for 8 years, since then he's been on the 747-400 and now the 777, I have also flown jump seat with him and a few other flight crew pre 9/11 on the 767-300 & A330/340 also had a chance to fly a A330 sim a couple of times. A quick note about the sidestick being on the left or the right, I have never heard any flight crew complain about that, I am left handed but flew the A330 sim from the F/O seat without any problems. After a few seconds it feels natural, I travel back and forth between London and the Middle east a lot, I drive to the airport sitting in the right hand side of the car in London and sit in the left hand side of the rental car when I'm at my destination, I'm sure most have you have done that also, are brains adapt very quickly. Going back to the A330/340 I would safely say 90% of crew at his airline preferred flying the A330 due to the fact that 340-300 is considered very underpowered for it's size,especially operating out of very hot fields often at MTOW. I had quite a few questions when he was doing his line & Sim training but the main things I remember was his comments about not being able to feel the aircraft in the same way as the previous Boeings he had flown (767/737) He said you can't feel the weight of the aircraft in the same way and something he had to get used to, but apart from that he thought it was a great machine to fly. If you have any specific questions on the handling let me know and I will relay them to him, however it's been about 6 years since he's flown Airbus.Regards

Hello,http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/minutes-air-f...tory?id=9951878

this is the most comprehensive news story I've seen recently on this ongoing investigation.

Maybe comprehensive .. but filled with many non-sens !Seem's they have not readed a word of the BEA intermediary report.They make speculations .. but not based of already well know facts ...Maybe a good scenario for a Hollywood movie .. it's just to add some romance .. :)One of the many non-sens :

It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations."Major deviation would therefore no longer have been possible anymore," says Gerhard H

I'm going to avoid the arguments and stick to the original question. Anyway Dillon, my old man was on the A330/340 for 8 years, since then he's been on the 747-400 and now the 777, I have also flown jump seat with him and a few other flight crew pre 9/11 on the 767-300 & A330/340 also had a chance to fly a A330 sim a couple of times. A quick note about the sidestick being on the left or the right, I have never heard any flight crew complain about that, I am left handed but flew the A330 sim from the F/O seat without any problems. After a few seconds it feels natural, I travel back and forth between London and the Middle east a lot, I drive to the airport sitting in the right hand side of the car in London and sit in the left hand side of the rental car when I'm at my destination, I'm sure most have you have done that also, are brains adapt very quickly. Going back to the A330/340 I would safely say 90% of crew at his airline preferred flying the A330 due to the fact that 340-300 is considered very underpowered for it's size,especially operating out of very hot fields often at MTOW. I had quite a few questions when he was doing his line & Sim training but the main things I remember was his comments about not being able to feel the aircraft in the same way as the previous Boeings he had flown (767/737) He said you can't feel the weight of the aircraft in the same way and something he had to get used to, but apart from that he thought it was a great machine to fly. If you have any specific questions on the handling let me know and I will relay them to him, however it's been about 6 years since he's flown Airbus.Regards

Thanks allot for the response... :( How's the climb rate in the real bird (330)? Does it get to altitude more efficiently for it's size than say a 767 or 744 (sea level to say 37,000ft)? What I mean is step climbing required to let the weight of fuel subside? The engine thrust rating versus MTOW would seem there's power to spare in getting to altitude. The wing design can be a huge help as well it would seem concerning efficient lift. By comparison two well known great climbers on both sides of the fence would have to be the A320 and 757. The 737-700NG isn't that bad either.

Hello,Related to the sidestick operation (somehow discuted in a above message)

The following is a summary of a crosswind landing incident to an A340 landing at Melbourne, Australia. As an observer I find myself thinking that there is some thing a little more basic going on than the often said "follow SOP's" or "more training required" in dealing with the Airbus philosophy.Full report athttp://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&amp...0505311_001.pdfAt 1200 Eastern Standard Time on 26 October 2005, the outboard bead heel of the number-1 wheel tyre on the left main landing gear (MLG) of an Airbus A340-642 (A340) aircraft, registered HS-TNA, separated from the outboard rim of the wheel assembly during a landing on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport, Vic. The landing was conducted during gusting crosswind conditions.The number-1 wheel tyre deflated immediately after the bead heel separated from the wheel rim. The tyre then partially disintegrated during the remainder of the landing roll, and the tyre tread detached from the tyre casing. Following the number-1 wheel tyre deflation, the crew maintained control of the aircraft and, apart from some minor deviations to the left and right of the runway centreline, tracked along the centreline.The aircraft touched down with 15-degrees of yaw as a result of its handling by the flight crew. That yaw angle was greater than recommended by the aircraft manufacturer, and increased the risk of damage to the MLG at touchdown. It also increased the risk that the resultant groundslip angle of the MLG tyres would exceed the